"We cannot
know for certain what Gurbaksh will do, and certainly hope he
will take no action that hurts or distracts the company," the
memo reads. "We do not believe he has any legitimate claims
against the company, and we are therefore confident that the
company would prevail against such claims."

I have now been able to connect with most of you, around the
world, to talk through the events of the last week. I wanted to
follow-up and address a few questions that were sent to me
following our All Hands meetings today. I have aggregated and
summarized the main questions below:

What legal actions could Gurbaksh take against the company that
could expose us to a period of prolonged uncertainty?

We cannot know for certain what Gurbaksh will do, and certainly
hope he will take no action that hurts or distracts the company.
We do not believe he has any legitimate claims against the
company, and we are therefore confident that the company would
prevail against such claims.

How will the company be able to move forward with Gurbaksh
retaining his seat on the board?

The company will remain fully functional even with Gurbaksh on
the board. He has no executive authority and because of the
composition of the Board Gurbaksh cannot impact any decisions
affecting the business.

Why did it take the board so long to terminate Gurbaksh’s
employment as CEO and Chairman?

The board moved as decisively as it could given the complexities
involved. A person is innocent until proven guilty. Given recent
developments, it became clear that Gurbaksh’s ability to lead the
company had been severely compromised by the legal proceedings
and ensuing developments. The Board asked Gurbaksh to voluntarily
tender his resignation in the best interests of the company. When
it was clear that Gurbaksh did not intend to resign as CEO and
Chairman, the board called a special meeting to terminate his
employment.

We’ve seen an email from a board member on Gurbaksh’s blog that
suggests the board was supportive of Gurbaksh. Isn’t this at odds
with terminating his employment?

The email paraphrased on Gurbaksh’s blog was in fact sent, but
was taken out of context. The communication was an effort to
discourage Gurbaksh from hurting himself by talking with the
media.

Gurbaksh has also suggested that the board influenced him to
accept the plea deal with the district attorney. Is that true?

Gurbaksh and only Gurbaksh made the final decision on whether to
accept the plea agreement. He asked many people for their advice
and opinions and the board offered that an outcome which
prevented prolonged court proceedings might be in the best
interests of the company but it never pressured him into that
course of action. Gurbaksh was represented by very competent
legal counsel. We must assume that Gurbaksh made the decision he
did because he thought that was the best outcome.

Some of you have also asked about the allegations made by Rafael
Rojas and, specifically, if management turned a blind eye to
allegations of illegal and unscrupulous activities by Gurbaksh.

For reasons that we hope you can respect, Rafael Rojas’
employment with the company, and the reasons for his separation,
are private personnel matters and we are not in a position to
comment on these matters. The company believes that at all times
it acted responsibly and in the best interests of the company.

Are we still going to do an IPO?

Many of you have asked me about our plans for an IPO. It is very
straightforward right now, our primary focus is on continuing to
grow our business as fast as possible whilst remaining
profitable. In that way we preserve our optionality on the timing
of an IPO.

I know this has been a difficult time for all of you, and I
appreciate your patience and support. I am always available to
take any additional questions you may have and encourage you to
call me no matter how small the concern. Thank you for all the
notes of support I have received over the last few days. I am
very proud to be your CEO and I look forward to working with each
and every one of you.